[BluesBear]

I went to the WACA Gun Show today in Puyallup and picked up a free 2003 S&W Catalogue.

In over 3 dozen display photos of revolvers only 2 show the left side of the gun? That's the side that shows the lock.
There is a closeup photo of the lock with a simple one sentence explaination on the features page.

Is S&W ashamed of the fact that they cowered down to the JBT?

What makes it worse is that back in the gunsmithing section they show 7 revolvers ALL from the left side. But these are older ones that don't have the lock.

IIRC ALL of the older S&W ad photos showed the left side. Let's face it that's the most interesting side since you can see the cylinder release and ejector rob. The right side is just sorta blank.


I especially seems kinda funny to me since EVERY photo of a semi-automatic in this same catalogue is from the left side except for the one on the cover and the one shown being drawn from a duty holster. :confused:

Are they trying to hide the lock?

Yet another one of those ethings that makes you go hmmmmmmm.

[Standing Wolf]

Are they trying to hide the lock?

Smith & Wesson has a lot to hide, and those moronic locks are only part of it.

[JERRY]

theyre still trying to hide that still binding agreement with the federal government.

no matter who is pres. and who owns them now, the agreement is still binding until it is recinded.

bush im sure wont push to have it reinstated, so why hasnt s/w made a move to nulify this? hum indeed!

[Mike Irwin]

No, S&W's owners have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have absolutely NO shame.

None.

[1badmagnum]

cookie cutter guns,something for everyone.
$900 for a airlight 44 magnum???:banghead:

[BluesBear]

I ask about a mechanical feature of S&W Handguns
and the thread gets moved to Legal & Political?

[Mark Tyson]

bush im sure wont push to have it reinstated, so why hasnt s/w made a move to nulify this? hum indeed!

Can they do that legally? Can they just unilaterally abrogate their part of the bargain?

[c_yeager]

What was your mechanical question?

[JohnBT]

Unfortunately, you used the overworked legal-political catch-phrase "JBT".

JBT

[uglymofo]

I've been out of handgunning for several years. Dunno whatch'all are talking about. Why is S&W's reputation so bad now (from what ya'll say)? I haven't handled a S&W in 20+ years; I never cared for their autos (last I remember was a 439[?] in the 1970's, I think, with the safety the "wrong" way, and that humongous rear sight. Besides being double-action first shot as I recall. (Can't ya just hear the 1911 in me?) And what lock? I couldn't find a picture of a lock on a revolver over at the S&W website. Everything's photos of the right side.

But seriously, what's happened to S&W since the late 70's that ya'll are raggin' on them so bad? and what's JBT mean?

[Wildalaska]

Some folks are upset that S&Ws prior owners entered into a feel good meaningless settlement with the sue happy (harpy?) lawyers rather than fight the lawsuit(s) into their bankruptcy.

Sort of like being angry at your wife because she gets raped.

WildcoercionAlaska

[Balog]

Sort of like being angry at your wife because she gets raped.


I wouldn't be mad at my wife if she got raped. I'd be pissed if someone knocked on our door and said "Let me in so I can rape you" and she unlocked the door and let him.

[Silver Bullet]

It's not just an issue of being angry, it's a matter of preventing the government from using a strong S&W for leverage when they start enforcing the agreement, and also a warning to any other manufacturer to not enter into a similar agreement.

I recommend this thread for instant enlightenment:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=89505&perpage=25&highlight=to%20get%20you%20excited%20confiscation%20registration&pagenumber=1

[Silver Bullet]

and she unlocked the door and let him
Good analogy !

[Wildalaska]

Good analogy

Actually its not...

WildtwodifferentcircumstancesAlaska

[Balog]

If anything Wild, I'd say my analogy is more applicable. Smith could have fought and won. Would it have been costly? Yeah. Would it have been worth it? Yeah. This country was founded by people willing to risk a whole lot more than lawyer's fees to stand for the principles they believed in. Not to mention that the agreement did very little to actually protect them. HUD made promises that they couldn't keep. At least Judas got real payment for his betrayal. S&W got a lot of empty promises.

[Mike Irwin]

"Sort of like being angry at your wife because she gets raped."


Oh?

More like being unhappy with your wife because you come home and find her on top of your worst enemy, because she accepted his indecent proposal.

S&W wasn't raped.

They screwed willingly. And the new owners are still carrying the bastard child that resulted instead of aborting it.

Face it, folks.

We're very likely going to have a Democrat as president in a little over a year, and the Democrats haven't abandoned the anti-gun platform. They've simply stopped talking about it in hopes that the general carbon blob gunowner will forget exactly where they stand on the issue.

Wouldn't it be really special if (and I expect it to happen) if the new administration decides to enforce the S&W agreement to the letter?

Whom is to blame then?

A look in the mirror will show the true culprit.

[buzz_knox]

Notwithstanding the fact that I find the rape analogy disgusting and inappropriate, it's also completely wrong.

S&W didn't just try to get rid of the lawsuits, it went for an advantage. The agreement calls for preferential treatment of those who signed it. So, S&W not only signed away the rights of dealers via the agreement and tried to assist in getting the ball rolling for further controls, they did it for a commercial advantage. So, S&W isn't a victim, it's a whore.

[Wildalaska]

S&W had a choice (under their old numbskull bottom line owners I may add)...cave in or go bankrupt...just like Dow Corning and all the other companies bein hit by Runaway Lawyers....

Anyone who thinks that the other gun comapnies who chose to stand and fight havent been hurt bad, sometimes real bad financially are dreaming...

Dont bblame the victim of extortion....and dont blame the rape victim who has a gun to her head...

Frankly I save my animus for others who are far more culpable in this system of ours...

WildandthereareplentyAlaska

[Balog]

Anyone who thinks that the other gun comapnies who chose to stand and fight havent been hurt bad, sometimes real bad financially are dreaming...


So? When is "it might hurt us financially" an excuse for selling out one's principals? Do you feel Vidkun Quisling was a misunderstood victim?

[bountyhunter]

They should be ashamed of those butt ugly MIM hammers and triggers and the poor quality of their guns these days.

[Wildalaska]

When is "it might hurt us financially" an excuse for selling out one's principals? Do you feel Vidkun Quisling was a misunderstood victim?

That comparison is so silly as to not even be worthy of further response...

WildgimmeabreakAlaska

[Mike Irwin]

Funny how all those other firearms companies that were being pressured along with S&W at the same time didn't cave in, Alaska, and a number of them had financials that were in a lot worse shape than S&W's at the time...

Nice to know that the gifts of the Founding Fathers and Framers are for sale. And rather cheaply, too, it would seem.

Tell me, when a Democratic administration mandates strict enforcement of the terms of the S&W agreement, are you going to rush right out to abide by those terms?

Do you even know what those terms are, and how they would affect your gunshop?

I wish I had known your stance a month ago.

[c_yeager]

gun companies like all others exist to make money. They have no other principle beyond that. At the time S&W made thier agreement they believed it to be the best decision to make from a financial stand point. The purpose of the ensuing boycott is to prove them wrong in order to prevent further companies from making the same choice. Gun manufactures have only a duty to themselves and those who work for them.

[Wildalaska]

Funny how all those other firearms companies that were being pressured along with S&W at the same time didn't cave in, Alaska, and a number of them had financials that were in a lot worse shape than S&W's at the time...

And at least one of them is on the brink.....

Tell me, when a Democratic administration mandates strict enforcement of the terms of the S&W agreement, are you going to rush right out to abide by those terms?

Assuming its deemed enforceable...nope....

I wish I had known your stance a month ago.

Why? You wouldnt have taken advantage of a deal that I offered the fine folks, here.?..without regard by the way as to whether I agreed with their political stance on issues..in fact if I conducted my life solely around whether I agreed with a person I would be a hermit :)

My personal view on 2nd Am issues has always been clear, but if not I can reiterate them. I dont view the 2nd Am as absolute. I dont think the Instant Check system is unconstituional. I dont view the ATF as jackbooted thugs. I dont think felons have a right to own firearms. I dont think that carrying a concealed handgun is a right guaranteed by the constitution. I believe the assault weapons ban is unconstitutional AND silly. I dont villify S&W becasue they did what they had to do, in their perception, to survive, just as I dont villify Ruger for Bill Rugers statments or actions, or Colt for lopping off bayonet lugs to appear touchy feely or any other company that has its back to the wall because the system of justice in this country sucks...

[Mike Irwin]

"And at least one of them is on the brink....."

And that observation proves... what?

Thing their financials would be any better had they (I'm assuming you're talking about Remington) signed off on the agreement with S&W in 2000 and had gone through the ensuing boycott?

Dig back into TFL for some of the reports of how badly the boycott hurt S&W in the ensuing 2 years.

What's truly tragic in all of this is when a Democratic administration forces compliance, blame will be laid squarely at the feet of the evil, evil big brother government, instead of where it truly belongs.


"Nope..."

Ah, now there's the rub...

You likely won't have much of a choice. If you wish to continue dealing in products offered by the companies that are party to the agreement, you'll have to comply with that extra special agreement.

That's what complicity buys you, WildAlaska. The right to purchase the rope with which you hang yourself.

[Wildalaska]

You likely won't have much of a choice. If you wish to continue dealing in products offered by the companies that are party to the agreement, you'll have to comply with that extra special agreement.

Ah but ya see, theres the rub, the majority of gun shops, distributors and gun owners wont...in fact very few willl...and S&W will go bankrupt, therby making both the absolutists and the antis happy...


But that of course presupposes the enforcibiltiy of the agreement.....

[c_yeager]

Mike, Wild's view on S&W has been well known on this board from a number of posts. As a dealer his POV is understandable. He sells guns for a living. The fact is its hard to find a shop that doesnt carry S&W. And i really havent seen how S&W's agreement has had any negative repercusions on anyone but S&W. I wont BUY a post agreement S&W but, i am not going to get on someone's case for selling them to make a living.

[seeker_two]

I dont view the 2nd Am as absolute.

Are the other amendments not "absolutes" as well?

And how much "leeway" should we give in the Second Amendment (& the others, as well)?

[buzz_knox]

That comparison is so silly as to not even be worthy of further response...

Actually, what's silly (and disgusting) is your chronic comparison of S&W to a rape victim. S&W had a choice; rape victims don't. The fact that you can't see a difference and continue to make this comparison makes it clear that you really have no concept of what rape is or how patently offensive your comparison is.

[ksnecktieman]

The second amendment is not an absolute? I need to protest that in my local paper. Can someone provide me with the telephone number to get a nics check so I can use my first amendment right to free speech in an editorial to my local paper? I will be using a royal typewriter, serial number 34355776.

[Tamara]

I ask about a mechanical feature of S&W Handguns
and the thread gets moved to Legal & Political?

Do you see why now? ;)

As far as "ashamed" about the lock, why? Because they managed to produce the most unattractive one other than maybe Bersa? Glock, HK, Taurus, Springfield, and Remington can all pretty much take photos from whatever side they want without their locks being noticeable.

FWIW, as to your original question: The 2003 S&W full line poster on my wall shows the right side of all the revolvers and the left side of all the semis. (Except the 629 Light Hunter down in the row of PC guns, which is shown with the left side facing out, zit and all.) On my 1984 S&W full line poster the revolvers are shown all facing left side out, but on the 1988 poster, all the wheelguns are viewed from the right side again. I'm pretty sure there isn't much in the way of a rhyme or reason to this; no "I buried Paul..." message is being sent. ;)

[Silver Bullet]

ksnecktieman

Bullseye!

And welcome to The High Road !

[George Hill]

No, S&W's owners have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have absolutely NO shame.

None.

Ooh... Nice blanket insult to all S&W owners...

[mtnbkr]

I think he was referring to the Company's owners, not individual S&W firearm owners.

Chris

[Mike Irwin]

Notice the placement of the apostrophe in the phrase, George.

I said "S&W's owners." That means the owners of the company.

Had I said "S&W owners," that would be a different matter. There are, however, manywho purchased their guns after March 2000 with full knowledge of the company's actions. They deserve censure, as well, as they are not friends of the Second Amendment.

I have two former friends who, knowing the potential consequences of the S&W deal to all firearms owners, went ahead and purchased S&W handguns anyway.

They are no longer welcome in my home.

[Wildalaska]

I have two former friends who, knowing the potential consequences of the S&W deal to all firearms owners, went ahead and purchased S&W handguns anyway.

Not to be a pest, but how far do you take that Mike...do you cut yourself off from all people who read Time magazine? Who use AOL? Who have HBO? Who watch Sean Penn movies (other than the fact that that shows bad taste) Who buy Rugers? Or Colts? Do you reject all of the "compromisers" out there?

WildjustcuriousAlaska

[Wildalaska]

S&W had a choice; rape victims don't. The fact that you can't see a difference and continue to make this comparison makes it clear that you really have no concept of what rape is or how patently offensive your comparison is.

Why is it offensive? Becasue its true? Becasue both instances are about an entity being coerced into doing something?

Ya think S&W hung up a big sign saying "Come on, we are a filthy trashy gun company, please sue us?" Ya think they enjoyed all of those legal gymnastics over NOTHING....How do you think the real gun people in the company felt when some pencil pusher in England dictated what was to be done?

A companies duties are to its stockholders and none other. You want to "boycott" Smith becasue of its percieved anti gun stance, fine. Be consistent. Boycott every other company that is anti or has engaged in activities inimical to your view of the 2nd...every one...Ruger, Colt, Glock, Southern Ohio Gun, HBO, Time, Hollywood...go to the NRA blacklist and cut em all off...

And let me throw a hypothetical at ya...suppose all of the rapists assaulting Bushmaster right now say.."OK, we will drop you as a defendant if you promise not to sell dealer direct any more"...now Bushmaster has the Hobsons choice...spend MILLIONS on legal fees with a toss of the dice at trial (witness Grunow) or be done with it...say they say OK...gonna boycott them for making a business decision?

Its OK if you do..but be consistent....

WildtheworldiscompromisesAlaska

[buzz_knox]

OK, we will drop you as a defendant if you promise not to sell dealer direct any more"...now Bushmaster has the Hobsons choice...spend MILLIONS on legal fees with a toss of the dice at trial (witness Grunow) or be done with it...say they say OK...gonna boycott them for making a business decision?

You are misrepresenting what happened and you know it. HUD, who was not suing S&W, went to the management and asked them to sign the agreement. In return, HUD would not sue and S&W would get preferential treatment in contracts. Other municipalities signed on, agreeing to drop the suit. S&W, against the advice of counsel mind you, accepted it. S&W had NOT yet expended the "MILLIONS on legal fees" because no suit had been filed by HUD, and because most of the suits were barely in the discovery phase.

The simple fact is that S&W was motivated by the opportunity to obtain an economic advantage of its competitors through illegal preferential treatment. Glock, Sig, and every other manufacturer said no to the deal and deserve our support. S&W deserves our contempt.

As for why your rape analogy is offensive, you should be able to understand the difference between a company making a financial decision and a person suffering the most brutal violation possible.

[Mike Irwin]

You need only to use the search feature, here and on TFL, to find out where I stand regarding Colt and Ruger.

Tell me this, Alaska.

Since you don't seem to have a problem with S&W's actions, when can we expect you to be selling Brady Campaign branded items in your gunshop?

If S&W's actions, and potential repercussions of their actions, aren't all that bad, then the Brady Campaign can't be all that bad either.

After all, isn't a buck a buck?

[buzz_knox]

Since you don't seem to have a problem with S&W's actions, when can we expect you to be selling Brady Campaign branded items in your gunshop?

One of the elements of the agreement is that S&W will donate a certain percentage of funds for "gun safety." So, he already does.

[Wildalaska]

One of the elements of the agreement is that S&W will donate a certain percentage of funds for "gun safety." So, he already does.

As does 99% of the dealers and distributors in this country. And as long as we are at it, lets all boycott Glock, HK, Ruger, Remington, Sako and Colt for all of their ongoing attempts to develop smart gun technology.....

After all, isn't a buck a buck?

Thats an unfair analogy. I work for a corporation whose reason for existence is to turn a legal profit for the benefit of not only the corporate owners, but us the employees who have families and children. Our customers want Smith and Wessons...we sell them...our customers want Rugers..we sell them....our customers dont want something...we dont sell it.....no one gun company is worse than any other one. Remington and Sako have lawyer locks. Marlins have lawyer safeties. Glock cooperates with anti gunners. And so on.

Again, you guys are pickin on the wrong villian...change the system...and again, that agreement will NEVER be enfoced a first year law student could get out of it...

WildbacktoworkAlaska

[buzz_knox]

Again, you guys are pickin on the wrong villian...change the system...and again, that agreement will NEVER be enfoced a first year law student could get out of it...

Bull. While the contract is not enforceable as written, it contains a saving provision that allows the court to jettison portions that are irredeemable in order to maintain the rest. That means that the court can sever the illegal preferential treatment for S&W, and the rest of the agreement is enforceable.

Let's see, minus the commercial advantage S&W got, we have offer (yes), acceptance (yes) and good consideration (HUD didn't sue S&W so yes). Yup, we have a fully valid and enforceable contract. Any first year law student could have told you that, Wilddon'tknowwhatyou'retalkingaboutAlaska.

[Wildalaska]

Wilddon'tknowwhatyou'retalkingaboutAlaska.

O really? Well I guess Ill just shut up now since my former life of having tried and litigated contract enforcement, bankruptcy cases, coporate debt and liability cases doesnt give me the background to comment...

WildbnewthreadtimeAlaska

[buzz_knox]

O really? Well I guess Ill just shut up now since my former life of having tried and litigated contract enforcement, bankruptcy cases, coporate debt and liability cases doesnt give me the background to comment...

So what? Appeals to authority are meaningless in the face of specific statements which refute your position. We can now take it that you have conceded the point.

[buzz_knox]

In hindsight, misrepresenting your screen name was inappropriate, although I felt somewhat justified given that you modify it continuously to suit your whim. Regardless, it was not proper 'net etiquette so I apologize. The rest of my points stand.

[Wildalaska]

Hey no apologies necessary...but I dont concede the point..unfortunately I type too slow to set forth the complete legal basis for my assertion of unenforcibility, hopefully we will never know anyway.....

WildverdunAlaska

[Alan Fud]

Posted by Mike Irwin: ... Funny how all those other firearms companies that were being pressured along with S&W at the same time didn't cave in ... If I remember correctly, only Ruger and S&W were bearing the financial cost of the industry lawsuits. It's easy not to cave in if it isn't costing you anything. Posted by Balog: ... Smith could have fought and won. Would it have been costly? Yeah. Would it have been worth it? Yeah. This country was founded by people willing to risk a whole lot more than lawyer's fees to stand for the principles they believed in ... You over look the fact that at the time of the agreement, S&W was owned by the British who could have cared less about ANY of our rights.

[ninjaj448]

I want to know what that 1st Amendment NICS check number is, too!

[BluesBear]

Tamara,

My original point was that for over a dozen years that I actively collected catalogues and annuals S&W always show all of their handguns from the left side. But since the inception of the lock, they seem to, much more often that not, be showing only the non-lock side of their revolvers, while still showing most of the automatics from the same side as always.

I was trying to ask for opinions on whether anyone else though there might corporate decision for that.

It seems that Taurus, for one, mentions their lock and it's so called "advantages" several times in their catalogues and show several photos of it, while touting it as a desirable feature.
While S&W calls attention to it once, on a features page, and simply says, "Smith & Wesson revolvers feature an internal lock for added security."
From the photo, if one didn't know, one could mistake it for some sort of small pushbutton lock or a hammer block safety. A key is never shown or mentioned.
I was wondering why they didn't at least and try to use it as a selling point for the sheeple?

[Silver Bullet]

Be consistent. Boycott every other company that is anti or has engaged in activities inimical to your view of the 2nd

There's nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about drawing a line and saying what one company did is excessive and what another company did is not. I can boycott S&W and not boycott Ruger, for example, because I believe what S&W did was extreme enough to warrant boycotting, and I believe that what Ruger did is not so extreme. These issues are not black-and-white; there are degrees of malfeasance. You don't give a jaywalker the same punishment as a murderer just because they both broke the law.

This applies to the S&W agreement too, of course. However, it is such an extreme case it is hard to imagine that folks would find it acceptable and be willing to overlook it as an anomalous indiscretion.

As Mr. Irwin stated in the thread I referenced, "Tell me, just what would it take to get you excited?"

[Balog]

Alan Fud wrote: You over look the fact that at the time of the agreement, S&W was owned by the British who could have cared less about ANY of our rights.

And this changes the contract that is still in force how exactly?

[buzz_knox]

You over look the fact that at the time of the agreement, S&W was owned by the British who could have cared less about ANY of our rights.

And you overlook the fact that the new owners acknowledged that the agreement was a contract, and that they intended on complying will all S&W's preexisting contracts, thereby ratifying the contract and negating the argument that it is not binding on them.